You are on page 1of 20

To: Kay Morrison

Community Involvement Coordinator


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10 Seattle, Washington

From: Duwamish River Accountability Group (DRAG)

Re: (JAN 2021) ESD EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES


COMMENT LETTER FOR LOWER DUWAMISH WATERWAY SUPERFUND SITE.

Dear Kay Morrison and EPA Community Involvement Staff for Region 10,

Thank you for allowing the public to provide comment. We are The Duwamish River
Accountability Group (DRAG), which is a group of community members and volunteers
who have formed following the recent EPA Duwamish River cleanup proposed changes.
Our mission is to address this, and other injustices occurring in the Duwamish Valley.

In December 2014, EPA released its Final Cleanup Plan (called a “Record of Decision”
or ROD). The ROD dictates the timeline and level of cleanup required, including where
and how much toxic sediment needs to be removed, capped, or treated with other
alternatives. The EPA recommended the dredging remedy for the areas with the highest
levels of toxic chemicals or where bottom river mud cannot be covered with a cap or
natural river deposits.
The river communities are suffering environmental impacts from the area being
industrialized and deserve the most thorough cleanup as possible.We encourage the
cleanup to still include the cleanup of 177 acres and not take short-cuts to save 1 million
dollars.The DRAG and the community urges EPA to remove sediments and have the river
cleaned up according to the 2014 Record of Decision.
We offer feedback to the EPA that the proposed changes not be taken up, further time be
granted for public comment, more transparency and community outreach is brought into
the process, the Department of Ecology is allowed time to do its impact on water
research, and that this project attain the oversight of its regional director and a Title VI
Committee to address the intersection of agencies' environmental justice efforts with their
Title VI enforcement and compliance responsibilities on the premises of:

Environmental Justice: The regions most impacted by this superfund site are in
Seattle’s historically Black and Brown neighborhoods of South Park and
Georgetown, areas that are also home to some of Seattle’s most economically
disenfranchised households. The current cleanup plan was already a compromise
to said impacted communities-- to further withdraw clean-up with this amendment

1
goes directly against the EPA’s commitment to Environmental Justice1, and
Executive Order 12898: Federal Action To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations2.

Scientific Data & Research Processes: The community and the University of
Washington has pointed to concerns related to the scientific findings upon which
the foundation for the amendment has been made, specifically related to
toxicology levels and the failure to consider a weight of evidence analysis, as
other studies came up with drastically different outcomes than the findings in the
studies used by the EPA. Further, the community is concerned the wildlife
specimens nor cumulative buildup of the presence of multiple compounds was
taken into consideration.

Impact on Water Quality: The Department of Ecology has voiced concerns that
the proposed changes do not allow for proper assessment of impact on water
qualities, and those studies should be conducted prior to cleanup amendment.

Time Frame, Representation, and Transparency: The turnaround time from when
the public received the fact sheet to the close of public comment was too short:
the fact sheet went out just days before the end of public comment. Further, this
proposed amendment has received significantly less time for public feedback as
proposed amendments for other superfund sites resulting in significantly less
participation from those most impacted. The public was not properly informed of
the independent analysis of the proposed change-- the independent analysis report
has still not been released to the public.

Regulatory & Oversight Neglect: The EPA does not yet have a new administrator
in place for this region which would be necessary to provide the critical support
regarding all the above mentioned issues at hand, potentially shielding itself from
further complications with cleanup amendment made in haste given the
consortium of complicating factors.

1
From the United States Environmental Protection Agency Statement on Environmental Justice
2
Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


2
CONSIDERATION I:
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE & PROTECTIONS AGAINST INEQUITY

DRAG opposes the proposed amendment to clean less of the river on the issue of
environmental justice. According to the EPA:

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful


involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national
origin, or income, with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. This goal will be achieved when
everyone enjoys:

● The same degree of protection from environmental and


health hazards, and
● Equal access to the decision-making process to have a
healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.3

Further, the EPA has named this region an environmental justice region in their
Environmental Justice Analysis. 4 We argue that the amended cleanup plan that will
account for 5 acres less of the contaminated Duwamish River to be cleaned is a matter of
environmental justice based on the historically BIPOC and lower income population of
this region, as well as the presence of the tribal community members.

GEORGETOWN & SOUTHPARK: HISTORICALLY BLACK & BROWN


COMMUNITIES

South Seattle in general, is home to a larger portion of Seattle’s BIPOC community


members due Seattle’s racist history of redlining and segregation. This history is well
documented by the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project with the University of
Washington’s Study of Seattle Segregation Maps from 1920 - 2010.5

FIGURE 1A: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MAPS OF DUWAMISH SUPERFUND SITE


3
See footnote 1.
4
EPA’s Environmental Justice Analysis for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Cleanup
5
From the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project with the University of Washington: Segregated Seattle,
Seattle Segregation Maps: By 1010: Residential patterns continued trends that had been established by 1990. Southeast
Seattle was more multiracial than ever. This is where most Black families lived, sharing census tracts with Asian
Americans, Latinos, and also Whites. In some tracts the split was close to 25%, 25%, 25%, 25%. The small Native
American population also distributed through these neighborhoods. Southern King County had much the same
multiracial complexion. Meanwhile the eastside had continued its bi-racial trend, shared by Whites and Asian
Americans, especially South Asians and Chinese, with Latinos moving into some neighborhoods but very few African
Americans. Much of North Seattle, West Seattle, and the wealthy neighborhoods near water had seen much less change.
Some tracts remained more than 90% White, many others above 80%, and in these areas Asian Americans were likely
to be the only people of color.

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


3
Duwamish River Superfund Site Neighborhoods as Seen on Larger Map

Map Courtesy of King County See South Park + Georgetown: Lower Middle
Region

African Americans (% of Asian Americans and Pacific 1990 - % White


population) 1990 6 Islanders (% of population)

6
Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project & UW:Segregated Seattle, Seattle Segregation Maps: footnote 5

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


4
A comparison of the superfund site maps in image 1A, that demonstrate the distribution of Seattle
residents along the lines of racialized makeup, the superfund site has been a more heavily
populated area for Seattle’s African American and Asian American populations with a noted
absence of white Seattle residents that have historically lived within the impacted zone.

GEORGETOWN & SOUTHPARK: LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

Further special considerations must be given to the care for this region’s population by factoring
in the economic makeup of this region’s population, as can be seen in graphic 1B and 1C
inclusive of South Park and Georgetown, respectively.

FIGURE 1B & 1C: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY REGION 7

1B: Median Income by Region (inclusive of South Park)

7
Per U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey Data for 2012-2016 as pulled by
visualization from Rich Blocks Poor Blocks

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


5
1C: Median Income of Region (inclusive of Georgetown)

FIGURE 1D: ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF IMPACTED REGION HOUSEHOLDS8

Census Tract 99 (inclusive of South Park) 2016 Median Household Income $69,423

Census Tract 93 (inclusive of Georgetown) 2016 Median Household Income $67,617

All of Seattle 2016 Median Household Income $83, 476

All of Seattle as a whole 2016 Median Family Income $119,000

8
Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development prosperity statistics from the 2016 American Community
Survey (ACS).

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


6
As seen in figure 1D, South Park (census tract 99) and Georgetown (census tract 93) have
median household incomes well below that of the overall median Seattle family income
cited in the 2016 ACS estimate 9 of $119,000 and overall Seattle household median
income of $83,476 demonstrating the economic disparities faced by those who live in this
region.
GEORGETOWN & SOUTHPARK: TRIBAL PRESENCE
The EPA’s Environmental Justice Analysis for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Cleanup10
states:
The federally-recognized Muckleshoot and Suquamish tribes have fishing
rights within or just north of the Lower Duwamish Waterway. The treaty
rights for tribes along the Duwamish were established in the Treaty of Point
Elliott. The fishery catch allowed by tribal treaty rights were further defined
in the 1974 Boldt decision (U.S. v. Washington, 1974)8, which affirmed that
50% of the catch from an area identified as a tribal usual and accustomed
fishing and harvesting area should go to tribes with rights for that area as
defined in the Treaty of Point Elliott. Usual and accustomed areas for
different Tribes often coincide in Washington, as is the case in the Duwamish

9
Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development prosperity statistics from the 2016 American
Community Survey (ACS).
10
EPA’s Environmental Justice Analysis for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Cleanup

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


7
Waterway. The LDW is primarily a treaty fishing area for the Muckleshoot
tribe, which has an active salmon fishery, while the Suquamish tribe manages
fisheries just north of the Lower Duwamish Waterway (North of Lower
Duwamish Waterway – see Waterway extent in Figure 1). Resident seafood
from the Lower Duwamish Waterway can be present in or pass through the
Suquamish Tribe’s usual and accustomed harvesting and gathering area.
The Duwamish tribe (ancestors along with the Suquamish Tribe of Chief
Si’ahl or Seattle) remains a presence in the region, with a newly-constructed
Duwamish Longhouse located along the Duwamish River, and the use of
Herring House Park for cultural ceremonies.
Past tribal seafood consumption surveys (which included surveys of the
Tulalip and Suquamish Tribes) have found that seafood consumption rates for
tribal members are much higher than EPA’s National Toxics Rule default rate
of 6.5 g fish/day and EPA’s recommended water quality national default fish
consumption rate of 17.5 g fish/day.

Overall, the region being named an Environmental Justice Region with the trifecta of
community members who are largely BIPOC, low income, and/or part of the tribal
communities who will be most impacted is reason alone to abandon the amendment for
reduced cleaning. The federal law also backs this statement.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 - Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in


Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
&
Title V
The Economic and racial makeup of the superfund site are of significance due to the
EPA’S Commitment to Environmental Justice, and the 1994 Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Executive
Order.
The EPA’s Environmental Justice page states11:
In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, each Federal
agency shall ensure that all programs or activities receiving Federal
financial assistance that affect human health or the environment do not
directly, or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria,
methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or
national origin.

11
EPA Environmental Justice: Title VI and Environmental Justice

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


8
With that directive in mind, in August 2011 the Environmental Justice
IWG established a Title VI Committee to address the intersection of
agencies' environmental justice efforts with their Title VI enforcement
and compliance responsibilities.

TITLE VI

1. Title VI prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance (e.g., states,


universities, local governments) from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or
national origin in their programs or activities.

2. Title VI is a federal law that applies to federal financial assistance recipients (i.e.,
persons or entities that receive EPA financial assistance) and not to EPA itself as
the Executive Order does.

3. Title VI allows persons to file administrative complaints with the federal


departments and agencies that provide financial assistance alleging discrimination
based on race, color, or national origin by recipients of federal funds.

4. Under Title VI, EPA has a responsibility to ensure that its funds are not being
used to subsidize discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. This
prohibition against discrimination under Title VI has been a statutory mandate
since 1964 and EPA has had Title VI regulations since 1973.

5. EPA's Office of Civil Rights is responsible for the Agency's administration of


Title VI, including investigation of such complaints.

Further, the Executive Order named above states that all federal agency hold stated
responsibility:

To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with
the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review,
each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations
in the United States and its territories.12

This executive order is set to keep the federal agencies from taking actions that would
specifically harm BIPOC and low income populations such as populations in the Lower
Duwamish Superfund Site communities of South Park and Georgetown.

The amendment which would leave 5 acres of the Duwamish River to not be cleaned, leaving
known carcinogens in the river, further exposing these Environmental Justice populations to

12
See footnote 2

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


9
those carcinogens is a violation of known environmental protections, and therefore must be
abandoned.

Furthermore, these special populations are in fact being left out of the process. Although
some efforts for outreach have been reported by DRCC, the actual presence of these
community members was grossly lacking at the most recent March 31st roundtable, with
about half the caucuses absent. As this is a population that is systematically marginalized,
extra efforts needed to be taken to bring them into the process, and to seek public comment
from these stakeholders-- those community members most impacted. To follow through on
the amendment without a massive campaign to attain community feedback would be a gross
neglect by the EPA and its hired community outreach teams.

We ask that the amendment be dropped. However, in lieu of this, we demand that any further
consideration of the amendment be overseen by a Title VI Committee to ensure the protection
and rights of the impacted communities which have been deemed Environmental Justice
communities.

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


10
CONSIDERATION II:
SCIENTIFIC DATA & RESEARCH PROCESS

The EPA’s proposed amendment for the Lower Duwamish River Superfund Site cleanup
is based on the supposition that a contaminant in the river, benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) no
longer poses as high a health risks as it was previously thought to, based on a 2017 EPA
update to their 1987 health risk information report for BaP.
There are, however, a number of concerns with this supposition: lack of weight of
evidence, lack of research on synergistic health effects of multiple pollution sources, and a
lack of information about increased risk factors/higher cancer slope factor in cases of
childhood exposure.

IIA: THE EPA FAILED TO PROVIDE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE FOR DECREASED


RISK OF BAP
According to the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC) Factsheet released to the
public on March 30th, 2021 titled, “Understanding the EPA’s Proposed Change to the
Duwamish Superfund Site Cleanup Plan, or ‘ESD’ (Explanation of Significant
Differences)” there is concern by independent scientists regarding the EPA’s findings on
BaP. The independent scientists cite a lack of weight of evidence, and although the
independent scientists’ findings have not been made public directly, they are paraphrased
here:
In order to review the cancer risk of exposure to BaP and other
cPAHs, EPA looked at 15 research studies. They excluded 12 that
did not test for lifetime exposure, and of the three that were left,
they eliminated one more due to its use of less stringent protocols
and reporting than the two newest studies. The two remaining
studies indicated that BaP is 7-times less toxic than the previous
standard used by EPA, while the excluded lifetime study indicated
that BaP is about 1.5-times more toxic than previous standard
(other studies also indicated a higher cancer risk than the new EPA
standard). Although the selection of the two newest studies is
consistent with EPA guidelines, UW scientists are concerned that
inconsistent results across all studies means that there is still a high
level of uncertainty about the cancer risk of BaP.13
Essentially, it seems the EPA used the only two studies available that indicate this lower
carcinogenic risk for BaP. All other studies show that the health standard for BaP’s
should be at a lower environmental level. This lack of weight of evidence suggests that
13
“Understanding the EPA’s Proposed Change to the Duwamish Superfund Site Cleanup Plan, or ‘ESD’ (Explanation
of Significant Differences)” - posted to the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition’s social media on March 30th, 2021.

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


11
the lowered health standard was not scientifically indicated. We at Duwamish River
Accountability Group would like to inquire why, without weight of evidence, was the
health standard lowered, and press for a deeper reconsideration of the cleanup
amendment given the compounding issue of questionable science, and the population at
risk.
Furthermore, the independent scientist report stated that the EPA made the proposed
change to the superfund site cleanup plan based on the assumption that the toxicity levels
of the other cPAH’s present in the river could be insinuated based on the BaP studies. The
independent scientists with the DRCC stated this is not true. In that same DRCC
factsheet, the independent scientists were summarized to say, “Health risk estimates for
other cPAH’s have long been based on the toxicity of BaP. However, more recent science
indicates these assumptions may not be protective and researchers who specialize in
cPAHs say each chemical needs to be studied individually.”14
Based on these two uncertainties of the actual carcinogenic level of BaP and other
cPAH’s alone, the amendment should not move forward, and the EPA should maintain its
cleanup commitments.

IIB: LACK OF RESEARCH ON SYNERGISTIC HEALTH EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE


POLLUTION SOURCES
In the March 31st Lower Duwamish Waterway Roundtable Meeting15 a number of
community members asked the independent scientists if the synergistic carcinogenic
levels of BaP’s had been measured with other cPAH’s or other toxic compounds.
The answer to the community in that meeting was that DRCC did not have that data. The
round table was not video recorded but those present at this open to the public meeting
can attest to this conversation.
The Duwamish River Accountability Group would like to suggest that to clean less of the
superfund site based on one data set that does not take into consideration an increased
carcinogenic risk slope or cancer slope due to synergistic potential when multiple
carcinogens are present is not only poor science, but possible malfeasance, as this could
have life or death consequences on the community impacted.
Further, it is a known issue of concern that has been brought up by the community for
over a decade, as documented in the Addington 2009 report which was cited in the
Environmental Justice Analysis for the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Cleanup,
Appendix B. The report’s purpose was to, “to ensure that communities are meaningfully
involved in the decision process as much as is practicable”16 as stipulated in EO12898.

14
See footnote 10.
15
Lower Duwamish Waterway Roundtable Meeting held on March 31, 2021.
16
EPA EJ Analysis

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


12
That report lists a community concern to be, “synergistic health effects of multiple
pollution sources”. That was in 2009. The fact that in 2021 at the most recent round table,
the community still asked this question, and still did not have answers to this question, over a
decade later, implies a breach of EO12898 in involving the community meaningfully, and a
failure of EJ by the EPA.

IIC: LACK OF INFORMATION ABOUT INCREASED RISK FACTORS & CANCER


SLOPE IN CASES OF CHILDHOOD EXPOSURE
The changes which only correspond to the new CPAH cleanup levels still put the most
impacted in danger which are children who play on the beach,17 clam gatherers, tribal
fishers, and all who fish and eat from the Duwamish River.
DRAG calls to the attention of the EPA the fact that we do not know the impact of BaP
exposure on early children. From the EPA’s own Toxicological Review of
Benzo[a]pyrene Executive Summary:
According to the Supplemental Guidance for Assessing
Susceptibility from Early Life Exposure to Carcinogens (U.S. EPA,
2005b), individuals exposed during early life to carcinogens
with a mutagenic mode of action are assumed to have an
increased risk for cancer. The oral slope factor of 1 per
mg/kg-day and inhalation unit risk of 0.0006 per μg/m3, calculated
from data applicable to adult exposures, do not reflect presumed
early life susceptibility to this chemical. Although some
chemical-specific data exist for benzo[a]pyrene that
demonstrate increased early life susceptibility to cancer, these
data were not considered sufficient to develop separate risk
estimates for childhood exposure.

As the EPA knows that early childhood exposure does increase the risk of cancer to some
extent, we feel it is critical to name here some of the other known risks that the EPA
would be exposing the children to by leaving a portion of the river uncleaned per the
proposal.

17
PER THE EPA Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene Executive Summary: “Susceptible Populations
and LifestagesBenzo[a]pyrene has been determined to be carcinogenic by a mutagenic mode of action in this
assessment. According to the Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early Life Exposure to
Carcinogens (U.S. EPA, 2005b), individuals exposed during early life to carcinogens with a mutagenic mode
of action are assumed to have an increased risk for cancer. The oral slope factor of 1 per mg/kg-day and
inhalation unit risk of 0.0006 per μg/m3, calculated from data applicable to adult exposures, do not reflect
presumed early life susceptibility to this chemical. Although some chemical-specific data exist for
benzo[a]pyrene that demonstrate increased early life susceptibility to cancer, these data were not considered
sufficient to develop separate risk estimates for childhood exposure. In the absence of adequate chemical-specific
data to evaluate differences in Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene8 age-specific susceptibility, the
Supplemental Guidance (U.S. EPA, 2005b) recommends that age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAFs) be
applied in estimating cancer risk. The ADAFs are 10- and 3-fold adjustments that are combined with age specific
exposure estimates when estimating cancer risks from early life (<16 years of age) exposures to benzo[a]pyrene.”

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


13
According to the EPA Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) Toxicity Report 18 BaP is known to impact
developmental toxicity (including developmental neurotoxicity), reproductive toxicity,
and immunotoxicity. Specifically:

Development:
○ Neurobehavioral changes
○ Decreased embryo/fetal survival
Reproduction:
○ Decreased ovarian follicles and ovary weight
○ Reduced ovulation rate and ovary weight
And leads to gastrointestinal tumors and respiratory tumors.19 Further impacts on health
can be seen in the EPA’s Quantitative Estimate of Carcinogenic Risk from Oral Exposure
Report.20 Of special consideration should be the oral slope factor, which is reported to be
1 per mg/kg-day in adults.
Oral Slope Factor:
1per mg/kg-day

Extrapolation Method:
Time-to-tumor dose-response model with linear extrapolation from
the POD (BMDL10(HED)) associated with 10% extra cancer risk.

Tumor site(s): Gastrointestinal

Tumor type(s): forestomach, esophagus, tongue, and larynx tumors


(Kroese et al. 2001; Beland and Culp, 1998)

Note: ADAF -- EPA has concluded that benzo[a]pyrene is


carcinogenic by a mutagenic mode of action. Application of
age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAFs) to the oral slope factor is
recommended in combination with appropriate exposure data when

18
Per the EPA Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene Executive Summary
19
Per the EPA Toxicological Review of Benzo[a]pyrene Executive Summary: “Evidence for Human
CarcinogenicityUnder EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2005a), benzo[a]pyrene is
“carcinogenic to humans” based on strong and consistent evidence in animals and humans. The evidence
includes an extensive number of studies demonstrating carcinogenicity in multiple animal species exposed via all
routes of administration and increased cancer risks, particularly in the lung and skin, in humans exposed to
different PAH mixtures containing benzo[a]pyrene. Mechanistic studies provide strong supporting evidence that
links the metabolism of benzo[a]pyrene to DNA-reactive agents with key mutational events in genes that can
lead to tumor development. These events include formation of specific DNA adducts and characteristic mutations
in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes that have been observed in humans exposed to PAH mixtures. This
combination of human, animal, and mechanistic evidence provides the basis for characterizing benzo[a]pyrene as
‘carcinogenic to humans.’”
20
See footnote 11

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


14
assessing risk associated with early-life exposure.

These are the known health issues that arise in adults with the presence of BaP as claimed
by the EPA toxicology report. Repeatedly the report indicates increased risk with early
exposure, and yet, the EPA also states that we do not know the rate of increased risk due
to early childhood exposure. Thus, the EPA’s amendment is not only scientifically
unfounded, but all signs point to it also being quite unsafe. To go ahead with the
amendment would be wholly irresponsible, and could easily be considered an attack on
the people of the Environmental Justice neighborhoods of South Park and Georgetown,
and the tribal community members who live on and off of the Lower Duwamish River
and are most impacted.

This, along with the lack of weight of evidence, UW toxicologist concerns regarding the
methods by which other CPAH toxicity levels are being evaluated, and the failure to
evaluate synergistic factors of multiple toxins all provide ample grounds for the
amendment to be abandoned. The cost of $1 million saved is not worth the countless lives
endangered by keeping these higher levels of BaP in the river.

Overall, DRAG and other River community members are concerned that BaP were an
independently measured toxin and the cumulative effects and combinations of toxins
were not analyzed putting River community members, recreational users and all who
fish from the Duwamish River at risk. Further, the BaP is still known to contribute to
cancer, and this risk is likely only compounded by 40+ other pollutants (that come with
other health impacts) in and around the Duwamish River.

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


15
CONSIDERATION III:
UNKNOWN IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY &
POSSIBLE BREACH OF STATE LAW

The UW toxicologists who completed the independent scientific assessment of the impact
of the EPA amendment had concerns about the water quality. In the informational
one-sheet posted by DRCC on March 30th, 2021, they noted that the Department of
Ecology has a higher health standard for BaP toxicity:
While the EPA is responsible for the cleanup of the sediments in
the Duwamish, the WA State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is
responsible for controlling on going sources of pollution in the
areas that drain to the river. Controlling pollution involves finding
sources of any ongoing contamination and taking action to stop or
reduce them before they reach and pollute the river. Most of the
remaining cleanup of the sediments cannot begin until sources of
cPAHs and other contaminants (PCBs, arsenic, and dioxins/frans)
are sufficiently controlled so that the river does not become
recontaminated and cleanup does not have to be repeated.
Ecology does not expect the new BaP health risk information and
the EPA’s proposed change to affect its pollution source control
efforts for the Duwamish. Ecology’s regulation of water discharges
will continue to comply with State Water Quality Standards which
have NOT changed and continue to use the more conservative BaP
toxicity value, in accordance with state law. No new rule-making
to change this standard is currently being planned.
The only remaining question is whether the EPA’s new sediment
cleanup level affects how much cPAH in the sediments dissolve
into water and changes water quality, which depends on a wide
range of factors. The next phase of Ecology's Green-Duwamish
“Pollutant Loading Assessment” involves building a model that
will simulate the potential effects of contaminants in sediment on
water quality.21
The takeaway from this analysis is threefold:

1. We do not know how the cPAH sediments may affect water quality; the
Department of Ecology still needs to develop the test to determine this.

21
See footnote 12

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


16
2. The Department of Ecology and the State of Washington have their own, more
conservative toxicity value for BaP’s.
Even a cursory review of EPA’s residual risk tables in the final Feasibility Study, we
question if the cPAH sediment cleanup level would not be met in almost every segment
of the river and wonder how these studies apply to fresh water and salt water moving
currents where sediments are moved around and could pollute other bodies of water.
After speaking with community members, they had questions whether the water quality
criteria and the risk assessment of toxins in the sediment impacted their health. We
request the IRIS study meet the EPA’s Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
(BHRRA) and we request there be a thorough study on clams actually consumed and
gathered by impacted communities.
In sum, the water could very well be impacted, and the levels may very well be above
what is permissible by Washington State Law. We implore the EPA to consider this
matter when determining if the $1 million is worth a possible battle with the State of
Washington and the Department of Ecology to ensure that river is cleaned to the level that
is safe by acceptable standards.
We ask the EPA to abandon its amendment. In lieu of this, we ask the EPA to extend its
timetable for the amendment to be approved until after the Department of Ecology
studies have been completed, and the impact on water quality is known.

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


17
CONSIDERATION IV:
REPRESENTATION, TIME FRAME & TRANSPARENCY
The EPA purports a commitment to meaningful involvement in the superfund cleanup
outreach, as required by a provision of EO12898, “to ensure that communities are
meaningfully involved in the decision process as much as is practicable.”22

The March 31st community roundtable made a couple things very clear on the matter of
community involvement:

1. The community outreach efforts were ineffective inhibiting community


representation in the process:

a. Multiple caucuses did not have representation at the Community


Roundtable including an official representative from the “not-responsible”
small businesses caucus, the tribal government caucus, and the
recreational user caucus, just to name a few absent critical stakeholders.

b. Outreach efforts to community for the Round Table did not include
door-to-door mailers or door knocking, but appeared to rely heavily on
internet access and social media, which is likely not the best approach
given the population who lives in this region, disproportionately
marginalized and lower income for whom internet access is not as readily
available or perhaps utilized.

2. The time frame from when DRCC put out a colloquially digestible fact sheet to
when the public comment period closes (6 days) disallowed opportunity for
public engagement and comment.

a. The DRCC factsheet, “Understanding EPA’s Proposed Change to the


Duwamish Superfund Site Cleanup Plan, or ESD (Explanation of
Significant Differences)” was published to DRCC’s facebook page on
March 30th. It was not published to their website or other social media
accounts. The end of the public comment period, April 5th, allowed for
just 6 days for the information to be disseminated to the public, and
comments to be made. This is an impossible feat and absolutely
unacceptable burden on the Environmental Justice Communities of South
Park, Georgetown, and impacted Tribal community members.

22
See footnote 9, page 63.

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


18
b. The DRCC factsheet was not made physically available in the community
until Saturday, April 3rd-- just three days before the public comment
period was set to close.

c. Despite a formal request by DRAG to extend the public comment period,


the EPA refused, stating an extension had already been made, failing to
consider the fact that the DRCC’s independent scientific analysis report
had not been disseminated to the community by that time.

3. Transparency:

a. At the time of this letter’s submission, April 5th, DRCC still had not
shared the UW toxicologists independent assessment report to the public.

b. At the time of this letter’s submission, April 5th, DRCC still had not
shared the UW toxicologists independent assessment fact sheet to their
website.

c. There appears to be some hindrance of transparency and community


oversight regarding the work of DRCC. What outreach was done and who
did they successfully connect with? If the EPA is mandated to include
community in process by executive order, the tools should be provided to
DRCC to ensure that said outreach is localized, effective, and tailored to
fit the population that is most impacted by the superfund site.

d. The Community Round Table was intentionally unfilmed; those critical


conversations could not be made available to the public. When asked if the
Round Table would be filmed at the beginning of it on March 31st, the
Round Table moderator stated that the EPA attorneys advised against it, so
the answer was no. This kind of barrier to inclusivity of all community
members, whether they can make it to the event or not is unacceptable and
an obstacle to having transparency in the process.

Due to the above issues of lack of representation in the process, prohibitively short time
frame for community involvement post-release of relevant information-- information the
public still does not fully have access to (the independent scientist UW toxicology
report), and the lack of transparency in this process, we demand the amendment be halted
until these ethical concerns can be properly addressed, line-by-line. In lieu of this, we
demand a further extension of the deadline for public comment so that the independent
UW report information can be released, disseminated, and commented upon by those
most impacted. Aforementioned, we would again request a Title VI Committee review of
these concerns, given the Environmental Justice Population being impacted.

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


19
CONSIDERATION V:
REGULATORY & OVERSIGHT NEGLECT
News Release from EPA Headquarters, March 31, 2021: “Administrator Regan Directs
EPA to Reset Critical Science-Focused Federal Advisory Committees”23

The Washington Post, March 31st, 2021: “And in a memo to staff last week, [EPA
Administrator Regan] said the agency is reviewing policies that impeded science and is
encouraging career employees to ‘bring any items of concern’ to the attention of
scientific integrity officials as they review Trump-era actions.”24

The EPA just attained its new EPA Administrator at the federal level. Region 10 still does
not have a regional administrator. Given the number of concerns outlined above in
considerations I-IV, the Duwamish River Accountability Group, made up of community
members and volunteers must insist that this amendment process be halted until the new
administration’s administrator for Region 10 can be appointed and onboarded for proper
oversight of this project. There are so many factors that could bring harm to the impacted
Lower Duwamish River Community, that we implore the EPA to abandon the
amendment, or pause its progress until proper oversight can be attained.

Thank you,

Duwamish River Accountability Group


Email: duwrvaccgroup98108@gmail.com
Instagram: @drag_duwarvraccgrp

23
US EPA News Release from Headquarters, “Administrator Regan Directs EPA to Reset Critical Science-Focused
Federal Advisory Committees” March 31, 2021
24
Washington Post, “EPA Dismisses Dozens of Key Science Advisors Picked Under Trump” March 31, 2021

DRAG: DUWAMISH RIVER ACCOUNTABILITY GROUP


20

You might also like